Monday, October 18, 2021

Call for Judgment: Winning, Status Quo Part 2[Victory]

Enacted 7-5 - redtara

Adminned at 19 Oct 2021 04:20:12 UTC

Enacts a new Rule, named Earthlink Shatters, as follows.

The Player named Trapdoorspyder has achieved Victory.

Reconstructing the Status Quo, no more no less.
This is separated into two parts as the discussion on Discord is very heated.
Let’s wipe and begin anew.


Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 15:01:02 UTC

TyGuy is DoV locked for five days after the current one fails; better to name one of his compatriots?

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 15:03:16 UTC

He can post the new DoV when the current is Pending.

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 15:06:46 UTC

The current vote is 4-3, so it’d be safe for probably half a day?

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 15:07:34 UTC

I think it relies less in timing of you change the name to another nominee.

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 15:16:49 UTC

My suggestion would be one of the other named individuals in Dirac-Anderson; Cuddlebeam or Trapdoorspyder.

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 15:20:17 UTC

Modified to be impermeable

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 15:21:25 UTC

Hm, I would also suggest against having all three of them win; it could lead to duelling DoVs.

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 15:24:35 UTC

If they want to duel their DoV’s for some reason, they can still do so in the original non modified timeline

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 15:25:01 UTC

“may achieve Victory regardless of ... prohibitions of DoV posting” also doesn’t work; a player may always achieve Victory but this would not in effect allow anyone to post a DoV.

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 15:26:43 UTC


Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 15:28:03 UTC

Achieving Victory and posting a DoV are separate and distinct actions; the latter is prohibited by the 5 day timeout, not the former.

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 15:28:13 UTC

The timeout is worded “ the Citizen who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was Failed.”

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 15:30:01 UTC


Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 15:36:38 UTC

I only has access to the internet at stops which is ~30 sec and mod

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 15:42:29 UTC

I still don’t think we have the wording airtight, sorry; “may post DoVs and/or achieve Victory” says that they may achieve victory but not that they have achieved victory, which is a real distinction (I, the human person Josh, may currently win gold in the marathon at the 2024 Olympics, but I have not done so).

I’m not trying to be obstructive; I’m just trying to make sure that the wording of this has an effect when it’s enacted.

May I suggest, if it’s not too presumptuous:

“The Player named Trapdoorspyder has achieved victory”

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 15:42:47 UTC

Seems much easier to me than trying to force all these edge cases in

redtara: they/them

18-10-2021 15:56:09 UTC

Much cleaner but if we go that route make sure to also edit in a [Victory] tag as “Votable Matters other than DoVs require the ‘[Victory]’ tag in order to grant victory to a Citizen.”

Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 16:05:32 UTC

Oof, you’re right.

redtara: they/them

18-10-2021 16:24:53 UTC

Actually hm not sure if that is true if the mechanism for doing so is by adding a rule, otherwise ANY proposal that had as a side-effect of its enactment a victory might be ineffectual. I was thinking that in the case where a proposal just said “x has achieved victory.”

Brendan: he/him

18-10-2021 16:27:21 UTC

against I myself would prefer to achieve victory.

Josh: he/they

18-10-2021 16:45:26 UTC

imperial I disagree that the current position is unplayable and I also fundamentally don’t agree that any of the actions taken today were inherently unreasonable; as such I don’t see a persuasive reason to abandon the dynasty. If this outcome is inevitable then let it happen; I don’t think this dynasty deserves the stain of an abandonment.

That said, I’ll defer to Kevan’s feelings on the matter.


18-10-2021 17:08:11 UTC


Zack: he/him

18-10-2021 17:45:52 UTC


Zack: he/him

18-10-2021 17:49:54 UTC

It’s a shame, I was having a lot of fun with this round. I really wish Kevan would have just let it reach its natural conclusion.

Clucky: he/him

18-10-2021 17:53:19 UTC


redtara: they/them

18-10-2021 18:05:47 UTC



18-10-2021 18:16:25 UTC


Brendan: he/him

18-10-2021 18:22:14 UTC

Zack, do you mean the natural conclusion of Katelyn Dubose reaching the top of the tower? Sure, I’d vote in favor of that.

Kevan: he/him

18-10-2021 18:24:47 UTC

(Sorry I haven’t been around to respond to anything since this morning, it’s been a day of long meetings.)

Players freely voted for “Emperor can win through mantle pass” to be a rule, despite me arguing against it and pointing out that this was a proposal-heavy dynasty that would allow for a lot of power. When it enacted I also explicitly reminded everyone that my declared Imperial Style included “will not consider fairness when [taking game actions]” and “may assist a scam if the rules allow them to”. If, knowing all that, you aimed for a win that required a single particular proposal to pass unvetoed, I wouldn’t say that victory was assured.

If I’d vetoed these out of a clear blue sky, fair enough, that’s bordering on a core scam if not everyone knew it could happen. But we openly discussed “can the Emperor accept the mantle, should it be legal for them to throw the game to an accomplice” at least three times and voted on it twice, during the dynasty we’re all playing. I would have 100% expected a “but why didn’t you just veto, or demand a cut not to?” in the post-dynastic discussion, if I’d stood by, and would have asked the same of anyone in that position.


Raven1207: he/him

18-10-2021 19:06:56 UTC


Raven1207: he/him

18-10-2021 19:14:39 UTC

actually cov for

Clucky: he/him

18-10-2021 19:53:19 UTC

@Kevan I do feel like there between going “There are situtaitons where its okay to pass the mantle back to the last emperor (such as if its an early scam and you want the original dynasty to still happen)

I wasn’t here for all the discusions, but I think “can the Emperor accept the mantle” was discussed I don’t really think “should it be legal for them to throw the game to an accomplice” was ever actually discussed (well, it was discussed, but none of the proposals I think formally answered that one way or another)

my feelings are that technically its legal, no it ideally shouldn’t be legal, but the proposed ways I saw of fixing it didn’t actually solve the problem.

lemon: she/her

18-10-2021 20:41:30 UTC


Chiiika: she/her

18-10-2021 22:11:41 UTC

@Clucky the point is to restore the latest status quo, so that it can be fixed afterwards.

Just like the Prioritisation part.


18-10-2021 22:53:39 UTC

for Doesn’t feel like abandoning the dynasty to CfJ in what could have been a likely scenario had classic gameplay carried on for about 15 more hours.

This is a legal move that responds to another legal move. Both moves disrupt the plans of the opposition: Kevan’s VETOs disrupted our cabal’s plans to win via pooling and dynastic rules, this CfJ disrupts Kevan’s plans to win (eventually, I assume) by pooling and the modified Core Emperor Rules that caught some of us off guard, and which will probably continue to be debated.